Gentlemen, excuse my absence over the last few days; family and business have a habit of intruding on one's time at the most inconvenient of moments. A few quick comments on the last few days' debates:
Firstly, I respectfully disagree with recent statements made in this HQ that our party had a "seemingly floundering start." At the time that comment was made, the CUE had gone from a twinkle in our collective eye, to a strong platform based on broad consent from conservatives of different stripes, to a project launched in the Townhall, to a certified party with the realistic ambition of uniting the fragmented Right, to several members, all within an exceedingly short span of time. This strikes me as a great success story, rather than a story of "seeming" or other problems.
Secondly, I believe I made my position on Tilly clear when we discussed the founding of this party at Bolingbroke House, but to reiterate, I don't see either Sergei or Tilly as a great choice. My preferred option would be for CUE to stay out of the presidential race altogether, rather than serve as the handmaiden of one of the two candidates. Supporting Tilly as a party will indubitably limit our tactical options as well as our credibility as an alternative to the radical Left and the tired, ineffective Centre. This does not mean I believe individual CUE members can or should not vote for Tilly (he's certainly better than Sergei), but it means that I'd have preferred the CUE as a party (and its members) to stay clear of publicly supporting Tilly and consequently having to defend that choice.
Thirdly, in light of the fact that the party appears to have decided on officially supporting Tilly, and since coalition negotiations are already underway, we should at least sell our souls for the highest price possible. The offer made by Tilly for VP/one Ministry and Deputy Speaker is unacceptable. I agree with those who feel that the VP and Deputy Speaker positions are a joke and completely meaningless. I also agree, however, that VP/one Ministry and the Speakership will be acceptable (unless CUE turns out to win a share of seats in the GA equal to or greater than the UMP's). In addition, I suggest we ask that the UMP go along with the CUE's choice in the AG-selection process next Term.
Fourthly, we *cannot* support Tilly and completely slam his party at the same time. To do so makes us appear schizophrenic at best, and self-interested, inconsistent, manipulative, and cynical at worst. Endorsing Tilly means endorsing a cabinet that will be mostly composed of UP/UMP party members. We must either reconcile ourselves to that fact and accept that it will limit just how much we can attack the UP/UMP record (and the UP's failure to dissolve itself, which it had firmly and repeatedly promised to do during Term 9 elections), or we must reconsider our position on supporting Tilly. We cannot have it both ways - unless we don't value our own integrity or public image.
Fifthly, the party newspaper: given that the "Weekly Standard" was a newspaper published by that intolerable crypto-socialist Schwarzerd, I don't think the "Standard" is the best of choices.
Finally, some general comments on the direction and future of this party: our credibility and effectiveness critically depend on cohesion and unity. In other words, in public, we must act as a *party* rather than as a mere collection of individuals with their own agendas. This is not meant as a criticism of Brigadier Levarge, but by entering into personal negotiations with Tilly and campaigning on Tilly's behalf before the party had made a decision on these crucial issues, he effectively tied our hands on the whole candidate support/coalition question.
Due to these activities, our party can now neither endorse another candidate (not that we'd *want* to endorese Sergei, of course) nor take the stance that neither candidate is acceptable without appearing to be divided or to be flip-flopping. Given the somewhat pro-Tilly climate within our party, this development may not appear unduly troublesome; however, that may not be the case on future occasions. I do not believe in, nor do I advocate strict party discipline, but we do need a minimum of party cohesion, in thought as well as action, if we are to succeed. To my mind, we will ultimately be best able to serve our country by observing the needs of our party.
TMV St. James, Viscount of Dunwich